Chapter 23
I'm not sure about this chapter. Culver knows well enough the background of the early church fathers. But he doesn't at all engage with the last two centuries of thinking on the question of God and suffering. (Perhaps he will cover more of this in his section on Christology?)
Why do we assume that the early fathers were correct on some things (e.g. impassibility), yet we wouldn't sign up to their ecclesiology or soteriology? Maybe they were wrong on this too...
Surely God can choose to suffer? Surely he felt the pain of Christ?
The last three paragraphs of the chapter are interesting - I think they reveal much about Cuvler's assumptions. I'm wary of the whole question of analogy. If the Son became human (a man), that strikes me as going beyond analogy.
Surely God can choose to suffer? Surely he felt the pain of Christ?
The last three paragraphs of the chapter are interesting - I think they reveal much about Cuvler's assumptions. I'm wary of the whole question of analogy. If the Son became human (a man), that strikes me as going beyond analogy.
I thought about this in church this morning, in relation to all the gender neutral language used these days to refer to God. The big problem is that Jesus, the man, is Lord and Saviour. Not easy to get round that - but, even for us conservative guys, we need to reckon more with what that means about the nature of God.
Trust you are all well, Shed
Trust you are all well, Shed